No, I haven't. however I was simply responding to Maria's comment about Fr. hardon being a simple parish priest, which was obviously not the case.

PP

In the Catholic Church, until you are made a cardinal because of the accuracy and fecundity of your writing, as in Avery Cardinal Dulles, then you are still, however many catechetical works you write, a simple parish priest.

If Father John is canonized, it will not be as a reward for his writing. For that they make you a cardinal.

As I have said: Father Hardon's catechesis is akin to the difference between a universal and a local catechism.

Mary

I see. So the teachings of the Roman Catholic church can vary from place to place. Interesting. Thank you for the clarification.

Do you take issue with the terms "local council" and "ecumenical council"?

Either the teachings in the Roman Catholic Church on indulgences and purgatory vary according to locality, or they apply to the RCC as a whole. If the latter, then trying to split hairs by naming catechisms as "local" and "universal" is irrelevant and pointless.

As I have said: Father Hardon's catechesis is akin to the difference between a universal and a local catechism.

Mary

I see. So the teachings of the Roman Catholic church can vary from place to place. Interesting. Thank you for the clarification.

Do you take issue with the terms "local council" and "ecumenical council"?

Either the teachings in the Roman Catholic Church on indulgences and purgatory vary according to locality, or they apply to the RCC as a whole. If the latter, then trying to split hairs by naming catechisms as "local" and "universal" is irrelevant and pointless.

That is not at all true. There are always local variants in the Church universal. As long as a teaching does not threaten the core truth of any teaching, then some local variation is expected and tolerated.

As I have said: Father Hardon's catechesis is akin to the difference between a universal and a local catechism.

Mary

I see. So the teachings of the Roman Catholic church can vary from place to place. Interesting. Thank you for the clarification.

Do you take issue with the terms "local council" and "ecumenical council"?

Either the teachings in the Roman Catholic Church on indulgences and purgatory vary according to locality, or they apply to the RCC as a whole. If the latter, then trying to split hairs by naming catechisms as "local" and "universal" is irrelevant and pointless.

That is not at all true. There are always local variants in the Church universal. As long as a teaching does not threaten the core truth of any teaching, then some local variation is expected and tolerated.

I would say that the definitions above are just a tad outside of "some local variation".

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

So, rejections of certain dogmatic teachings are not considered threats to those teachings themselves and are therefore tolerated? I'm thinking of the Melkites and Byzantine Rite communities that are in communion with Rome but reject 'Indulgences, Temporal Punishment, Purgatory, etc.'

Then it would seem that they would get into more trouble if they re-interpolated these teachings in an objectionable way, thus threatening the the teachings themselves, rather than acknowledging them as the RCC proclaims them but rejecting their validity within their communities.

So, it would seem there is a more serious treatment of heresy rather than disbelief. OK.

As I have said: Father Hardon's catechesis is akin to the difference between a universal and a local catechism.

Mary

I see. So the teachings of the Roman Catholic church can vary from place to place. Interesting. Thank you for the clarification.

Do you take issue with the terms "local council" and "ecumenical council"?

Either the teachings in the Roman Catholic Church on indulgences and purgatory vary according to locality, or they apply to the RCC as a whole. If the latter, then trying to split hairs by naming catechisms as "local" and "universal" is irrelevant and pointless.

That is not at all true. There are always local variants in the Church universal. As long as a teaching does not threaten the core truth of any teaching, then some local variation is expected and tolerated.

As I have said: Father Hardon's catechesis is akin to the difference between a universal and a local catechism.

Mary

I see. So the teachings of the Roman Catholic church can vary from place to place. Interesting. Thank you for the clarification.

Do you take issue with the terms "local council" and "ecumenical council"?

Either the teachings in the Roman Catholic Church on indulgences and purgatory vary according to locality, or they apply to the RCC as a whole. If the latter, then trying to split hairs by naming catechisms as "local" and "universal" is irrelevant and pointless.

That is not at all true. There are always local variants in the Church universal. As long as a teaching does not threaten the core truth of any teaching, then some local variation is expected and tolerated.

I would say that the definitions above are just a tad outside of "some local variation".

PP

Paying attention to words and meaning, can you be more specific in terms of where you see a disconnect...that might not be the right word but we can work on that.

So, rejections of certain dogmatic teachings are not considered threats to those teachings themselves and are therefore tolerated? I'm thinking of the Melkites and Byzantine Rite communities that are in communion with Rome but reject 'Indulgences, Temporal Punishment, Purgatory, etc.'

Then it would seem that they would get into more trouble if they re-interpolated these teachings in an objectionable way, thus threatening the the teachings themselves, rather than acknowledging them as the RCC proclaims them but rejecting their validity within their communities.

So, it would seem there is a more serious treatment of heresy rather than disbelief. OK.

I am sure there are ways to tweak the language here to make it a better statement, but for our purposes here, I think you have come very close.

I would only add, for example and with reference to the idea of purgatory, there would have to be some teaching among the Melkites, that related to prayers for the dead, with the presumption that prayers for the dead have efficacy and of course that there be a need to do so.

Another example, toll houses. There would not be much of a scuffle about toll houses. Not all particulars would necessarily be accepted formally but it would not endanger the core teaching which is the need for and efficacy of prayers for the dead. This is how Father Hardon, again for example, can say what he says and not be entirely picked up formally by the universal teaching, but is not seen to be contrary to it. His work may be seen as good in a particular time and place in terms of expressing to ordinary folk that prayers for the dead are necessary and efficacious.

Also, I was wondering, do you know that there are four levels of the Baltimore catechism? In rank order they are meant to teach young children, youth, young adults and adults. Most of the time the texts that are offered in these kinds of discussions come from the most basic catechism. It's like reading Grimm's Fairy Tales as a way of teaching the formal and systematic principles of Catholic moral theology at a seminary level, with all that entails in terms of historical development and relationship to other Church doctrine. I am not saying that the catechisms did the very best job possible but they must be understood in context.

I don't mean this to be an exhaustive response but I think we are close to being accurate here.

So, rejections of certain dogmatic teachings are not considered threats to those teachings themselves and are therefore tolerated? I'm thinking of the Melkites and Byzantine Rite communities that are in communion with Rome but reject 'Indulgences, Temporal Punishment, Purgatory, etc.'

Then it would seem that they would get into more trouble if they re-interpolated these teachings in an objectionable way, thus threatening the the teachings themselves, rather than acknowledging them as the RCC proclaims them but rejecting their validity within their communities.

So, it would seem there is a more serious treatment of heresy rather than disbelief. OK.

I am sure there are ways to tweak the language here to make it a better statement, but for our purposes here, I think you have come very close.

I would only add, for example and with reference to the idea of purgatory, there would have to be some teaching among the Melkites, that related to prayers for the dead, with the presumption that prayers for the dead have efficacy and of course that there be a need to do so.

Another example, toll houses. There would not be much of a scuffle about toll houses. Not all particulars would necessarily be accepted formally but it would not endanger the core teaching which is the need for and efficacy of prayers for the dead. This is how Father Hardon, again for example, can say what he says and not be entirely picked up formally by the universal teaching, but is not seen to be contrary to it. His work may be seen as good in a particular time and place in terms of expressing to ordinary folk that prayers for the dead are necessary and efficacious.

Also, I was wondering, do you know that there are four levels of the Baltimore catechism? In rank order they are meant to teach young children, youth, young adults and adults. Most of the time the texts that are offered in these kinds of discussions come from the most basic catechism. It's like reading Grimm's Fairy Tales as a way of teaching the formal and systematic principles of Catholic moral theology at a seminary level, with all that entails in terms of historical development and relationship to other Church doctrine. I am not saying that the catechisms did the very best job possible but they must be understood in context.

I don't mean this to be an exhaustive response but I think we are close to being accurate here.

Wasn`t hell invented by manipulators and people who want to control the masses?I was just reading something from St. John Chrysostomus and he seemed to think there is no way out once you get in there... So I wonder why wasn`t he familiar with that?Wasn`t at least the possibility of getting out of hell/purgatory etc invented for financial $$$$$$ purposes?

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Wasn`t hell invented by manipulators and people who want to control the masses?I was just reading something from St. John Chrysostomus and he seemed to think there is no way out once you get in there... So I wonder why wasn`t he familiar with that?Wasn`t at least the possibility of getting out of hell/purgatory etc invented for financial $$$$$$ purposes?

First question--no.

Second question--don't know. "Seemed to think" is a long way from knowing conclusively one way or the other--even for such an illustrious saint as St. John Chrysostom.

Third question--no. FYI, hell and purgatory are *not* the same thing. Every soul undergoing purgation, i.e. who is in purgatory, will, by definition get "out" and "into" heaven.

Wasn`t hell invented by manipulators and people who want to control the masses?I was just reading something from St. John Chrysostomus and he seemed to think there is no way out once you get in there... So I wonder why wasn`t he familiar with that?Wasn`t at least the possibility of getting out of hell/purgatory etc invented for financial $$$$$$ purposes?

First question--no.

Second question--don't know. "Seemed to think" is a long way from knowing conclusively one way or the other--even for such an illustrious saint as St. John Chrysostom.

Third question--no. Hell and purgatory are *not* the same thing. Every soul undergoing purgation, i.e. who is in purgatory, will, by definition get "out" and "into" heaven.

People used to pay a lot for indulgences.I think that is one of the things that frustrated Martin Luther also.The getting out of hell thing was not official till the end of the middle ages...

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi